Urgent: Navision MSMQ concurrency issue

mc1234

Hi,

I have a question regarding MSMQ. We developed a .NET system which communicated with Navision through NAS and MSMQ.

Does MSMQ handles in FIFO matter or more than 1 message at the same time?
Does NAS helps in this matter? How?

Because it seems like it does not. We have a search function which currently retrieves around 75000 records. It takes a bit of time and meanwhile it blocks all the users from using the system.

Is there a ways to change how MSMQ works in order to allow other users using the system concurrently>

Environment:
- Navision 3.07
- NAS 3.06
- SQL Server 2000
- RAM 3GB
- Windows 2003
- .NET Framework 3.5


Thanks for your help!

matteo_montanari

mc1234 wrote:

Hi,

I have a question regarding MSMQ. We developed a .NET system which communicated with Navision through NAS and MSMQ.

Does MSMQ handles in FIFO matter or more than 1 message at the same time?
Does NAS helps in this matter? How?

Because it seems like it does not. We have a search function which currently retrieves around 75000 records. It takes a bit of time and meanwhile it blocks all the users from using the system.

Is there a ways to change how MSMQ works in order to allow other users using the system concurrently>

Environment:
- Navision 3.07
- NAS 3.06
- SQL Server 2000
- RAM 3GB
- Windows 2003
- .NET Framework 3.5


Thanks for your help!

Hi


Nas is like every other client, without a gui.
It process only one messange at the time and you can't change this.

Review your customization to be faster and/or to reduce locks.

Bye

Matteo

mc1234

Hi,

Will multiple instances of NAS's solve this issue?
If no, is there any work around to these issues?


Thanks!

matteo_montanari

mc1234 wrote:

Hi,

Will multiple instances of NAS's solve this issue?
If no, is there any work around to these issues?


Thanks!

Yes you can process 2 message at the same time with 2 NAS but verify if you customization can be executed at the same time without deadlocking each other.

Matteo

DenSter

I don't know if connecting multiple NAS instances to the same queue will work, I would probably design the solution around having a separate queue for each instance of NAS, and somehow separate the messages by type.

mc1234

Is it possible to read the search directly from SQL in this kind of Web Environment? Or will this still be a problem?

matteo_montanari

DenSter wrote:

I don't know if connecting multiple NAS instances to the same queue will work, I would probably design the solution around having a separate queue for each instance of NAS, and somehow separate the messages by type.

Hi

2 NAS on the same queue works well

Matteo

rdebath

mc1234 wrote:

Is it possible to read the search directly from SQL in this kind of Web Environment? Or will this still be a problem?

It is possible, however, your DBA may get grumpy as it's not (reasonably) possible to access the v3 sumindexes from the SQL level and you'll have to bypass the Navision security.

Multiple NASs is the best bet though in addition segregating the slow jobs from the quick ones may be a good idea.

Using CFRONT is another possible option (with sumindexes), though rarely the right one.

mc1234

Ok then. Thanks for all your replies they are of great help.

How many instances of NAS am i allowed to install?

rdebath

As many as you buy. (It's Microsoft)

I think a current license without any extras does actually give you one though.

mc1234

ok then. That makes sense for me.
Thanks.

Another question, do you think that the best way to communicate between .net and navision is the NAS or is there another option.

Thanks

rdebath

For V3 a NAS is best. But V6 (2009) does give you the ability to create a webservice which I understand is multithreaded.

mc1234

The problem that I have with this architecutre is that I'm recieving MSMQ error messages saying "insufficient resources" any idea how to solve this?

rdebath

Answer 1: jfgi

Top possibility IMO, messages are limited to 4MB by MSMQ

mc1234

The thing is that we don't have any messages more than 4MB. Could it be because of the fact that we are enabling the MSMQ Journal ?